SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et alRESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSED. Nev.March 25, 20161 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 1 - K IM G IL B E R T E B R O N 7 6 2 5 D E A N M A R T IN D R IV E , S U IT E 1 1 0 L A S V E G A S , N E V A D A 8 9 1 3 9 (7 0 2 ) 4 8 5 -3 3 0 0 F A X ( 7 0 2 ) 4 8 5 -3 3 0 1 DIANA CLINE EBRON, ESQ. (SBN 10580) E-mail: diana@KGElegal.com JACQUELINE A. GILBERT, ESQ. (SBN 10593) E-mail: jackie@KEGlegal.com KIM GILBERT EBRON 7625 Dean Martin Drive, Suite 110 Las Vegas, Nevada 89139 Telephone: (702) 485-3300 Facsimile: (702) 485-3301 Attorneys for SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC a Nevada limited liability company, Plaintiff, vs. vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a national association; JOSEPH A. HOLMES, an individual; SONJA J. PALMER, an individual; and DOES I through X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 2:13-cv-01153-APG-PAL SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC’s RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION [DKT. NO. 98] SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (“SFR”) files this Response to Defendant, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s (“Bank”) Response to Order to Show Cause Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (hereinafter the “Order”) entered on March 17, 2016. (Dkt. No. 97). For the reasons stated below, SFR submits this Response as Complete Diversity Exists. Jurisdiction Exists Under 28 U.S.C § 1332. The Plaintiff and the Defendants Are Citizens of Different States. SFR upon information and belief, believes the Defendant, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a nationally chartered bank with its charter filed in South Dakota and incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Therefore, the Bank is a citizen of the States of Delaware and South Dakota. SFR upon information and belief, believes the former homeowners, defendants, JOSEPH Case 2:13-cv-01153-APG-PAL Document 99 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 2 - K IM G IL B E R T E B R O N 7 6 2 5 D E A N M A R T IN D R IV E , S U IT E 1 1 0 L A S V E G A S , N E V A D A 8 9 1 3 9 (7 0 2 ) 4 8 5 -3 3 0 0 F A X ( 7 0 2 ) 4 8 5 -3 3 0 1 A. HOLMES and SONJA J. PALMER are citizens of and residing in the State of Nevada. SFR also believes that the former homeowners were not fraudulently named and were necessary parties to the original action. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity for subject matter jurisdiction to exist. The Plaintiff, SFR is a Nevada limited liability company (“LLC”). “[A]n LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owner/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Public records show that SFR is wholly owned by SFR Investments, LLC, a Nevada LLC, which is wholly owned by SFR Funding, LLC, a Delaware LLC, which is wholly owned by a Canadian Entity, Xiemen LP. Upon information and belief, none of Xieman LP’s partners are citizens of the United States. The Bank does not provide any substantive response to the Court, other than stating: “Wells Fargo does not oppose this matter being remanded.”1 This response is a complete contradiction of the Bank’s initial position, when they petitioned to remove this matter from State Court. As stated in the Bank’s Petition for Removal, there is complete diversity between all Plaintiffs and Defendants.2 SFR maintains its position now, as it did three years ago, that complete diversity exists. SFR is highly concerned about the Bank’s Response. Without actually answering the Court’s order and providing information on diversity, the Bank states: “SFR lacks standing to oppose remand, as SFR originally elected to file suit in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, and cannot now object to remand to that forum.” This statement is wrong. By the Bank’s lack of formulating a substantive response to the Order inquiring about Subject Matter Jurisdiction, they are essentially asking for this matter to be remanded. There is no legal basis for remanding this matter back to State Court. As this matter has been properly before this Court for almost three years and there are several dispositive motions pending before this Court. The Bank is essentially forum shopping! The Bank cannot remove this matter from State Court and then after three years, unilaterally ask the Court to remand the action back without sufficient 1 See Plaintiff’s Response to Order, filed in this matter on March 24, 2016, [Dkt. 98]. 2 See Plaintiff’s Petition for Removal, filed in this matter on June 28, 2016, [Dkt. 1]. Case 2:13-cv-01153-APG-PAL Document 99 Filed 03/25/16 Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 3 - K IM G IL B E R T E B R O N 7 6 2 5 D E A N M A R T IN D R IV E , S U IT E 1 1 0 L A S V E G A S , N E V A D A 8 9 1 3 9 (7 0 2 ) 4 8 5 -3 3 0 0 F A X ( 7 0 2 ) 4 8 5 -3 3 0 1 legal reason. Therefore, upon information and belief, SFR agrees with the Bank in their Petition for Removal that complete diversity exists between the parties. CONCLUSION SFR believes this case is properly before this Court and should not be dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this __25th __ day of March, 2016. KIM GILBERT EBRON /s/Jacqueline A. Gilbert_______________ DIANA CLINE EBRON, ESQ. (SBN 10580) JACQUELINE A. GILBERT, ESQ. (SBN 10593) KAREN L. HANKS, ESQ. 7625 Dean Martin Drive, Suite 110 Las Vegas, Nevada 89139 Telephone: (702) 485-3300 Facsimile: (702) 485-3301 Attorneys for SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC Case 2:13-cv-01153-APG-PAL Document 99 Filed 03/25/16 Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 4 - K IM G IL B E R T E B R O N 7 6 2 5 D E A N M A R T IN D R IV E , S U IT E 1 1 0 L A S V E G A S , N E V A D A 8 9 1 3 9 (7 0 2 ) 4 8 5 -3 3 0 0 F A X ( 7 0 2 ) 4 8 5 -3 3 0 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 25th day of March, 2016, pursuant to FRCP 5, I served via the CM/ECF filing system the foregoing SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC’s RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION [DKT. NO. 98] to the following parties: Amy F. Sorenson asorenson@swlaw.com, Docket_LAS@swlaw.com, DOCKET_SLC@swlaw.com, smoen@swlaw.com Dana Jonathon Nitz dnitz@wrightlegal.net, blopipero@wrightlegal.net, lcox@wrightlegal.net, mresnick@wrightlegal.net Daniel S Ivie divie@swlaw.com, docket_las@swlaw.com, gkim@swlaw.com, lluxford@swlaw.com Jared C. Fields jfields@swlaw.com, docket_slc@swlaw.com, lpump@swlaw.com Richard Gordon rgordon@swlaw.com, DOCKET_LAS@swlaw.com, gkim@swlaw.com, lluxford@swlaw.com Robin E Perkins rperkins@swlaw.com, DOCKET_LAS@swlaw.com, mawilliams@swlaw.com, sdugan@swlaw.com /s/Jeremy R. Beasley_ __________ An Employee of Kim Gilbert Ebron Case 2:13-cv-01153-APG-PAL Document 99 Filed 03/25/16 Page 4 of 4
